Ook Ook!
Friday I skipped work to go see a lecture at the U of A by Jane Goodall! I kinda felt bad for leaving them high and dry, but it's for the greater good. I wonder if they think I called in sick cuz of 4/20... Anyway, the lecture was very eloquent and inspirational and most definitely worth seeing. She was talking about her research and claims being an uphill battle since all of the "erudites" at Cambridge insisted that only humans had personality or emotions. As a result Goodall's findings were utterly groundbreaking. She, of course knew well before observing chimps that animals had emotions and personalities and her dog was her living example. And since anyone who has a pet (be it a salamander, rabbit or dog) knows full well they at least have personality and the mammals have emotion, the conclusion must be drawn that the erudites of Cambridge were the stuffy British lords with spectacles, twirly moustaches, tobacco pipes and never owned a pet in their lives. Incidentally, she is likely the only person in the world capable of greeting a university lecture hall in customary chimpanzee fashion without looking silly.
Also, from the footage of her doing fieldwork in the 60's, she was a cutie in her day.
And congratulations to Mr. Kissel on winning Teacher of the Year!
Monday, April 23, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Darmok
Wisdom Sits in Places by Keith Basso. A required reading but very well written and entertaining. It concerns the value of places and place names in Western Apache culture and why they have a strong connection to the land. While the Apache reasons might not necessarily be the same for other tribes it might explain the stereotypical American Indian obsession with land. First off, place names are considered to be direct quotes of the ancestors and to mispronounce them or abbreviate them is considered disrespectful. Second, the names are things like "Water Flows Down On A Succession Of Flat Rocks" and are meant to paint a descriptive picture of the place so that even if you hadn't been there you can imagine it just the same. Also, some places are so named from the view at a particular spot which they were originally viewed. The best example I can think of is the two light colored vertical strips on the Catalina Mountains in a depression that looks like a giant shoe print look like a 19 to me. But if you're further west, it looks like an 11. Most importantly, parables are told in context of those places and a moral lesson is then forever associated with that place and whenever you see, walk by or even hear the name of the place you are reminded of the moral lesson. This is why Apaches don't like to move from their land, because they will no longer have these very real reminders and they may forget to be a good person.
This also explains their cryptic dialogs with one another. As all Apaches know these stories and where they happened, they can reference the stories and talk about some moral issue without directly stating it. Think of it like constantly quoting movies to get your meaning across, you really need to understand the origins of the metaphors to effectively communicate in Apache.
I also learned from the book and subsequent class lectures on Apache culture that they are the most frustratingly passive-aggressive people ever and by Western standards (no, scratch that. By European, Asian, African and Middle Eastern standards) they're downright unfriendly. In the book, there's some young woman who is acting too much like a Whitewoman at a ceremony and is thus being disrespectful. Rather than mentioning that she's going against tradition in a subtle way, this old lady tells a story about how some stupid Apache tried to act White and in doing so almost betrayed another Apache, to all the people at the ceremony while the girl is right next to her. Gah!
The most bizarre thing is that Apaches make Whiteman jokes where they imitate how they think we speak and act. And naturally EVERYTHING we do offends them. Whites call people "friend" too easily, Apaches only use it for people they've known pretty much all their lives. Asking how someone is or how they're feeling is an invasion of privacy. Saying something like, "Look who's here!" is considered offensive because it's obtrusive. Calling someone by their name is rude. Physical contact such as handshakes, hugs, slaps on the shoulder are not welcome. Telling a guest to "Come on in. Make yourself at home." is considered bossy. A rapid-fire series of questions like "Can I get you something? Beer? A sandwich?" are also rude because you haven't given them time to stop and think about the answer. Calling attention to one's appearance (i.e. nice boots or something) make Apaches feel uncomfortable. Plus eye contact is considered aggressive. Just stop to think about all that. Those are some of the nicest things you can do as a host, but would all be rude and offensive to them.
They make jokes where they do all of the above and then end with "Whitemen are stupid."(incidentally Whiteman evidently means anyone that isn't Indian) All I have to say is they should thank their lucky stars it was Whites who colonized the New World. If Frank's and Feifei's moms are any indication they would have gone nuts with how polite and effusive the Arabs and Chinese are.
Wisdom Sits in Places by Keith Basso. A required reading but very well written and entertaining. It concerns the value of places and place names in Western Apache culture and why they have a strong connection to the land. While the Apache reasons might not necessarily be the same for other tribes it might explain the stereotypical American Indian obsession with land. First off, place names are considered to be direct quotes of the ancestors and to mispronounce them or abbreviate them is considered disrespectful. Second, the names are things like "Water Flows Down On A Succession Of Flat Rocks" and are meant to paint a descriptive picture of the place so that even if you hadn't been there you can imagine it just the same. Also, some places are so named from the view at a particular spot which they were originally viewed. The best example I can think of is the two light colored vertical strips on the Catalina Mountains in a depression that looks like a giant shoe print look like a 19 to me. But if you're further west, it looks like an 11. Most importantly, parables are told in context of those places and a moral lesson is then forever associated with that place and whenever you see, walk by or even hear the name of the place you are reminded of the moral lesson. This is why Apaches don't like to move from their land, because they will no longer have these very real reminders and they may forget to be a good person.
This also explains their cryptic dialogs with one another. As all Apaches know these stories and where they happened, they can reference the stories and talk about some moral issue without directly stating it. Think of it like constantly quoting movies to get your meaning across, you really need to understand the origins of the metaphors to effectively communicate in Apache.
I also learned from the book and subsequent class lectures on Apache culture that they are the most frustratingly passive-aggressive people ever and by Western standards (no, scratch that. By European, Asian, African and Middle Eastern standards) they're downright unfriendly. In the book, there's some young woman who is acting too much like a Whitewoman at a ceremony and is thus being disrespectful. Rather than mentioning that she's going against tradition in a subtle way, this old lady tells a story about how some stupid Apache tried to act White and in doing so almost betrayed another Apache, to all the people at the ceremony while the girl is right next to her. Gah!
The most bizarre thing is that Apaches make Whiteman jokes where they imitate how they think we speak and act. And naturally EVERYTHING we do offends them. Whites call people "friend" too easily, Apaches only use it for people they've known pretty much all their lives. Asking how someone is or how they're feeling is an invasion of privacy. Saying something like, "Look who's here!" is considered offensive because it's obtrusive. Calling someone by their name is rude. Physical contact such as handshakes, hugs, slaps on the shoulder are not welcome. Telling a guest to "Come on in. Make yourself at home." is considered bossy. A rapid-fire series of questions like "Can I get you something? Beer? A sandwich?" are also rude because you haven't given them time to stop and think about the answer. Calling attention to one's appearance (i.e. nice boots or something) make Apaches feel uncomfortable. Plus eye contact is considered aggressive. Just stop to think about all that. Those are some of the nicest things you can do as a host, but would all be rude and offensive to them.
They make jokes where they do all of the above and then end with "Whitemen are stupid."(incidentally Whiteman evidently means anyone that isn't Indian) All I have to say is they should thank their lucky stars it was Whites who colonized the New World. If Frank's and Feifei's moms are any indication they would have gone nuts with how polite and effusive the Arabs and Chinese are.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Zzz...
Sleeping Dogs Lie with Melinda Paige Hamilton and Bryce Johnson. A dark comedy with a moral is really the best way to describe it. It raises good questions that are generally glossed over in most movies: is complete honesty the best policy? And do your loved ones really have a right to know everything about your past? The movie was pretty good all around especially considering how small scale it was. My only gripe is how utterly screwed over the main character gets, but that's just cinema and the brutal dark aspect of the film. As I thought about it, there are really several messages one can take away from the film: the first is obviously don't assume honesty is always a good thing and don't assume you can handle the total truth. The second is the idea of forgiveness, one really shouldn't hold people's mistakes against them, especially if it's from a time before you knew them. That said, are there things that cannot be forgiven? Both in the sense of being unable to put down the mental weight of a grudge and also the inability to shake an idea from your mind no matter how much you want to forget. And third, perhaps the one no one wants to hear: should one police one's own behavior if they think they will regret it or have it come to bite them in the ass later? I have a feeling most people who read this blog are of the "No regrets. Your past is what makes you who you are. Time heals all wounds." mindset so bear with me. Are there things you shouldn't do (I'm talking about things you could go either way on, not stuff you know you want to do because it makes you happy) because having that in your past is a liability to your future relationships? It doesn't even have to be something horrendous, but just enough to scare away someone in the early stages of a relationship. And for those that would reply with, "If they can't handle who I am, then they weren't right for me anyway" I'd say you've missed the first two lessons.
Word of the Day: Bricolage- a construction made of whatever materials are at hand; something created from a variety of available things. A piece of makeshift handiwork.
I wonder if it's related to brickabrac.
Sleeping Dogs Lie with Melinda Paige Hamilton and Bryce Johnson. A dark comedy with a moral is really the best way to describe it. It raises good questions that are generally glossed over in most movies: is complete honesty the best policy? And do your loved ones really have a right to know everything about your past? The movie was pretty good all around especially considering how small scale it was. My only gripe is how utterly screwed over the main character gets, but that's just cinema and the brutal dark aspect of the film. As I thought about it, there are really several messages one can take away from the film: the first is obviously don't assume honesty is always a good thing and don't assume you can handle the total truth. The second is the idea of forgiveness, one really shouldn't hold people's mistakes against them, especially if it's from a time before you knew them. That said, are there things that cannot be forgiven? Both in the sense of being unable to put down the mental weight of a grudge and also the inability to shake an idea from your mind no matter how much you want to forget. And third, perhaps the one no one wants to hear: should one police one's own behavior if they think they will regret it or have it come to bite them in the ass later? I have a feeling most people who read this blog are of the "No regrets. Your past is what makes you who you are. Time heals all wounds." mindset so bear with me. Are there things you shouldn't do (I'm talking about things you could go either way on, not stuff you know you want to do because it makes you happy) because having that in your past is a liability to your future relationships? It doesn't even have to be something horrendous, but just enough to scare away someone in the early stages of a relationship. And for those that would reply with, "If they can't handle who I am, then they weren't right for me anyway" I'd say you've missed the first two lessons.
Word of the Day: Bricolage- a construction made of whatever materials are at hand; something created from a variety of available things. A piece of makeshift handiwork.
I wonder if it's related to brickabrac.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Hen Mei Rong Xing!
About a month ago, some Asian guy stopped by Beyond Bread and after ordering his food somehow got into the conversation of jobs. He said he worked at a sushi restaurant and was about to suggest the cashier (a Mexican gangsta) do the same, when he realized he would probably not go well in a sushi restaurant and should set his sights on another kind of establishment.
What struck me about the conversation was the acknowledgment that certain races are given preferential treatment in the restaurant industry. I don't mean the usual discrimination of all non Whites, but how ethnic restaurants will hire people of that ethnicity to gain a measure of authenticity and avoid other ethnicities to maintain credibility. One of my favorite examples is a sushi restaurant in Stockholm owned by a Chinese family. As long as the average White person can't tell the difference they keep their authenticity. Which brings me to my main rant. Yesterday Frank and I went to get Chinese takeout from a place we had never been to before. We ordered boba tea and I ordered kung pao beef. The boba tea was absolutely horrid; the tea was bitter with nearly no fruit flavoring and the tapioca had a texture bordering on crunchy. After disposing of our drinks, we went home and tried the dinner. Normally when one has peanuts in Asian food they're raw and then fried, which gives them a nice flavor and texture which is still clearly peanut but not something you're really used to. Not this time. This kung pao had roasted peanuts sprinkled very generously on top. The most peculiar thing was the subtle yet distinctive taste of the peanuts, which is only found on Planter's products.
WTF mate? Who the hell do they think they're fooling? Was the old Asian man behind the counter even Chinese, I wonder? At the very least they weren't following any "ancient Chinese recipe" that's for damn sure.
About a month ago, some Asian guy stopped by Beyond Bread and after ordering his food somehow got into the conversation of jobs. He said he worked at a sushi restaurant and was about to suggest the cashier (a Mexican gangsta) do the same, when he realized he would probably not go well in a sushi restaurant and should set his sights on another kind of establishment.
What struck me about the conversation was the acknowledgment that certain races are given preferential treatment in the restaurant industry. I don't mean the usual discrimination of all non Whites, but how ethnic restaurants will hire people of that ethnicity to gain a measure of authenticity and avoid other ethnicities to maintain credibility. One of my favorite examples is a sushi restaurant in Stockholm owned by a Chinese family. As long as the average White person can't tell the difference they keep their authenticity. Which brings me to my main rant. Yesterday Frank and I went to get Chinese takeout from a place we had never been to before. We ordered boba tea and I ordered kung pao beef. The boba tea was absolutely horrid; the tea was bitter with nearly no fruit flavoring and the tapioca had a texture bordering on crunchy. After disposing of our drinks, we went home and tried the dinner. Normally when one has peanuts in Asian food they're raw and then fried, which gives them a nice flavor and texture which is still clearly peanut but not something you're really used to. Not this time. This kung pao had roasted peanuts sprinkled very generously on top. The most peculiar thing was the subtle yet distinctive taste of the peanuts, which is only found on Planter's products.
WTF mate? Who the hell do they think they're fooling? Was the old Asian man behind the counter even Chinese, I wonder? At the very least they weren't following any "ancient Chinese recipe" that's for damn sure.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
One of these things is not like the others...
First thing's first: Muddy Bug rocked last night! I was genuinely impressed, though not surprisingly, they sound much better live than with the speakers on my laptop.
And Happy 19th Birthday to Stephanie!
Yesterday, per the suggestion of my adviser, I paid a visit to the Career Fair at the U of A. Honestly, I have no idea why she sent me there. Naturally, I figured the employers for anthropologists would be pretty hard to find and that it would mainly be business and hard science majors. Turns out the only thing even resembling a job opportunity for anthro majors involves working with the mentally unstable or meth addicts (note not recovering meth addicts) . I was most definitely out of place there; not only was I not the right major, I wasn't actually looking for a job, I didn't have a résumé and I wasn't dressed in a suit and tie. Oh no, while everyone is dressed to impress, focusing on a singular goal, rattling off 1 minute interviews at the people running the booths, I'm meandering through "exciting opportunities" and "leadership builders" with a McLenin's shirt. Ironically, I had the feeling people were paying more attention to me than the "goal getters" and "team players" that were trying to catch their eye.
Awash in corporate clichés, I departed after what was at most fifteen minutes. I left with that feeling you get when you walk out of a movie theater wondering why everyone else around you loved the movie you just tolerated. Sure, it was keyed to a certain type of major, but why would my adviser tell me to go? Had she never been to one before? Maybe she was deceived by the ALL MAJORS signs which were as abundant as the corporate catchphrases being recited. At the end of the day, one question remained nagging me: do corporations really ONLY want leaders? That word seems to be the key to a successful interview or accepted application. Do they really want 20 million people in the workforce all thinking they should be telling everyone else what to do? Is there no room in the job market for a highly trained and devoted employee with aspirations of leadership?
First thing's first: Muddy Bug rocked last night! I was genuinely impressed, though not surprisingly, they sound much better live than with the speakers on my laptop.
And Happy 19th Birthday to Stephanie!
Yesterday, per the suggestion of my adviser, I paid a visit to the Career Fair at the U of A. Honestly, I have no idea why she sent me there. Naturally, I figured the employers for anthropologists would be pretty hard to find and that it would mainly be business and hard science majors. Turns out the only thing even resembling a job opportunity for anthro majors involves working with the mentally unstable or meth addicts (note not recovering meth addicts) . I was most definitely out of place there; not only was I not the right major, I wasn't actually looking for a job, I didn't have a résumé and I wasn't dressed in a suit and tie. Oh no, while everyone is dressed to impress, focusing on a singular goal, rattling off 1 minute interviews at the people running the booths, I'm meandering through "exciting opportunities" and "leadership builders" with a McLenin's shirt. Ironically, I had the feeling people were paying more attention to me than the "goal getters" and "team players" that were trying to catch their eye.
Awash in corporate clichés, I departed after what was at most fifteen minutes. I left with that feeling you get when you walk out of a movie theater wondering why everyone else around you loved the movie you just tolerated. Sure, it was keyed to a certain type of major, but why would my adviser tell me to go? Had she never been to one before? Maybe she was deceived by the ALL MAJORS signs which were as abundant as the corporate catchphrases being recited. At the end of the day, one question remained nagging me: do corporations really ONLY want leaders? That word seems to be the key to a successful interview or accepted application. Do they really want 20 million people in the workforce all thinking they should be telling everyone else what to do? Is there no room in the job market for a highly trained and devoted employee with aspirations of leadership?
Monday, April 02, 2007
Bajs
No better way to start a Monday morning than with an email that begins: "There's no easy way to do this." Evidently the paper I submitted to Arizona Anthropologist was rejected. Helldamncrap.
In happier news I may have decided on a topic for my Honors thesis that has the best of both physical and cultural anthro.
Interesting tidbits from the Wildcat regarding the land I love (or rather it's neighbors): "The US is first in the world in gun ownership per capita, Finland is second." I've hear stories about the Finns carrying all manner of weapons with them, but never guns. There's a stereotype among Swedes that Finns all have knives in their boots and the Finnish exchange students were asked if they had a knife about as often as I was asked if I had a gun. Also, supposedly there's a large instance of murders in Finland related to medieval weapons such as swords and battle axes. I'm gonna have to call BS on that one, can't trust them Swedes.
And: "Norway consumes more Mexican food than any other European nation." This one I believe, as the Swedes were very fond of Mexican food as well. Even though the Scandinavians couldn't get Mexican food right to save their souls. Or drinks for that matter (sugar on a margarita glass, helvete) I'm guessing the definition of "Mexican food" is lax for that survey.
And new Flickr photos. The ones from NC are now correctly geotagged and I'll probably rearrange the sets sometime in the future.
No better way to start a Monday morning than with an email that begins: "There's no easy way to do this." Evidently the paper I submitted to Arizona Anthropologist was rejected. Helldamncrap.
In happier news I may have decided on a topic for my Honors thesis that has the best of both physical and cultural anthro.
Interesting tidbits from the Wildcat regarding the land I love (or rather it's neighbors): "The US is first in the world in gun ownership per capita, Finland is second." I've hear stories about the Finns carrying all manner of weapons with them, but never guns. There's a stereotype among Swedes that Finns all have knives in their boots and the Finnish exchange students were asked if they had a knife about as often as I was asked if I had a gun. Also, supposedly there's a large instance of murders in Finland related to medieval weapons such as swords and battle axes. I'm gonna have to call BS on that one, can't trust them Swedes.
And: "Norway consumes more Mexican food than any other European nation." This one I believe, as the Swedes were very fond of Mexican food as well. Even though the Scandinavians couldn't get Mexican food right to save their souls. Or drinks for that matter (sugar on a margarita glass, helvete) I'm guessing the definition of "Mexican food" is lax for that survey.
And new Flickr photos. The ones from NC are now correctly geotagged and I'll probably rearrange the sets sometime in the future.
Friday, March 30, 2007
¡No Me Gusta!
At the start of this semester I had been out of touch with Spanish for about 3 years. I had debated whether I should go finish my secondary language requirement with one semester of Spanish or tough out two semesters of Swedish. Ultimately I chose Spanish partly out of convenience, but also because I wanted to brush up on the language. The thing is, I considered this the best move career-wise and not something out of personal fulfillment. I never really had a good time learning Spanish in high school, mainly because of my classmates but also a lack of engaging teachers. My mom, who just so happened to be my middle school Spanish teacher, assured me that as I progressed to higher levels of Spanish the idiots would thin out and I would only be left with intelligent, well motivated classmates. Alas, this was not true. The morons just kept coming, utterly useless study partners and atrocious accents and always pronouncing the silent H.
My GATE and AP classmates all took French and they were clearly academic and motivated, plus they at least tried to get the accent right. I think the majority of my crushes in high school happened to study French, and there I was in crummy ol' Spanish. I sort of resented the kids that took French; did they think they were too good for Spanish? Of course I recognized this wasn't the case all the time, French is a very important, globally useful language and if people like the sound of French better, that's their choice. The people I could never abide, and still can't, are the ones who took French because they didn't want to speak "Mexican" as though merely learning their language might infect them. People who think it's a coarse and dirty language of peasants. I'm not exaggerating here, these are all things people have told me. Now granted, folks around Nogales really do sully the language's reputation and if you go to Spain or talk to someone from central Mexico the language suddenly becomes a lot more pleasant.
It also doesn't help my feeling toward Spanish that they have all manner of crazy verb tenses. Even when it's clearly written down and explained in English I still don't know what the hell the unconditional subtransitive perfect participle is. Or why they decided to make all of the most commonly used verbs the ones that completely defy all of the rules of the language. Seems like they should be setting an example for the rest of the verbs.
And then there's swearing in Spanish. Now swearing is a tricky thing in most every language and I haven't been immersed in a Spanish speaking culture so my observations are more limited, but it seems cursing in Spanish is fundamentally different than in other languages. From my understanding of the language you really can't have fun swearing, there's no real joy in it. You can call someone a "lucky son of a bitch" in English but "hijo de puta" is something quite different. In Sweden during the gasques (a formal dinner) the entire table toasts the V-Dala librarian, calling him a "skitstoval" which basically means bastard. The only contexts I have ever heard Spanish swearing is if someone is being mean or cruel, never in a joking or light tone. Of course, I get irritated when people swear too casually, where they say "fuck" with the frequency which Valley Girls say "like". But that's because it's still vulgar and inappropriate and it shouldn't be used all the time. But just because of that it shouldn't mean you can't have fun with it. I also have to consider I might be spoiled by English, as people from all over the world have told me that swearing in English is just better. Whether they are aiming for humor, vulgarity, anger or just aural appeal, people find English to be a good cursing language.
When it comes down to it, I know comparing different languages is like comparing apples to oranges and you can't ever expect that a culture should follow your rules. But that doesn't mean I have to like them equally. I've plowed through years of Spanish with the nagging thought that maybe it just isn't my thing. I always figured it was just because I was learning a new language and such feelings were unavoidable. But after learning another language (admittedly one that is closer to English) I realize this doesn't have to be the case.
So Spanish, I guess what I'm trying to say is I still think you're a good language to know and you're really interesting, but I just don't love you. I'm sorry.
At the start of this semester I had been out of touch with Spanish for about 3 years. I had debated whether I should go finish my secondary language requirement with one semester of Spanish or tough out two semesters of Swedish. Ultimately I chose Spanish partly out of convenience, but also because I wanted to brush up on the language. The thing is, I considered this the best move career-wise and not something out of personal fulfillment. I never really had a good time learning Spanish in high school, mainly because of my classmates but also a lack of engaging teachers. My mom, who just so happened to be my middle school Spanish teacher, assured me that as I progressed to higher levels of Spanish the idiots would thin out and I would only be left with intelligent, well motivated classmates. Alas, this was not true. The morons just kept coming, utterly useless study partners and atrocious accents and always pronouncing the silent H.
My GATE and AP classmates all took French and they were clearly academic and motivated, plus they at least tried to get the accent right. I think the majority of my crushes in high school happened to study French, and there I was in crummy ol' Spanish. I sort of resented the kids that took French; did they think they were too good for Spanish? Of course I recognized this wasn't the case all the time, French is a very important, globally useful language and if people like the sound of French better, that's their choice. The people I could never abide, and still can't, are the ones who took French because they didn't want to speak "Mexican" as though merely learning their language might infect them. People who think it's a coarse and dirty language of peasants. I'm not exaggerating here, these are all things people have told me. Now granted, folks around Nogales really do sully the language's reputation and if you go to Spain or talk to someone from central Mexico the language suddenly becomes a lot more pleasant.
It also doesn't help my feeling toward Spanish that they have all manner of crazy verb tenses. Even when it's clearly written down and explained in English I still don't know what the hell the unconditional subtransitive perfect participle is. Or why they decided to make all of the most commonly used verbs the ones that completely defy all of the rules of the language. Seems like they should be setting an example for the rest of the verbs.
And then there's swearing in Spanish. Now swearing is a tricky thing in most every language and I haven't been immersed in a Spanish speaking culture so my observations are more limited, but it seems cursing in Spanish is fundamentally different than in other languages. From my understanding of the language you really can't have fun swearing, there's no real joy in it. You can call someone a "lucky son of a bitch" in English but "hijo de puta" is something quite different. In Sweden during the gasques (a formal dinner) the entire table toasts the V-Dala librarian, calling him a "skitstoval" which basically means bastard. The only contexts I have ever heard Spanish swearing is if someone is being mean or cruel, never in a joking or light tone. Of course, I get irritated when people swear too casually, where they say "fuck" with the frequency which Valley Girls say "like". But that's because it's still vulgar and inappropriate and it shouldn't be used all the time. But just because of that it shouldn't mean you can't have fun with it. I also have to consider I might be spoiled by English, as people from all over the world have told me that swearing in English is just better. Whether they are aiming for humor, vulgarity, anger or just aural appeal, people find English to be a good cursing language.
When it comes down to it, I know comparing different languages is like comparing apples to oranges and you can't ever expect that a culture should follow your rules. But that doesn't mean I have to like them equally. I've plowed through years of Spanish with the nagging thought that maybe it just isn't my thing. I always figured it was just because I was learning a new language and such feelings were unavoidable. But after learning another language (admittedly one that is closer to English) I realize this doesn't have to be the case.
So Spanish, I guess what I'm trying to say is I still think you're a good language to know and you're really interesting, but I just don't love you. I'm sorry.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Turtles
TMNT with James Arnold Taylor and Nolan North. As a lifelong ninja turtles fan, I would have been happy with most any movie they made (unless it had resembled the 3rd movie), but I was especially pleased with the way this one turned out. It's a pleasant shade darker than the other movies or series (but not necessarily the comic books) and the animation was very well done. I was glad Raphael, my favorite turtle, was given such a major role and was very pleasantly surprised that Leonardo's character was expanded upon and finally made interesting. It was a welcome change from him simply being the bland, level-headed voice of reason and now we see him shouldering the burdens of leadership. The fight scenes alternated between large scale, video game-esque battles and one-on-one intense combat, something the live action movies never really could do. It also reminded me I have a big stack of DVDs of the '87 series on my desk that I haven't even touched. I need to get on that.
TMNT with James Arnold Taylor and Nolan North. As a lifelong ninja turtles fan, I would have been happy with most any movie they made (unless it had resembled the 3rd movie), but I was especially pleased with the way this one turned out. It's a pleasant shade darker than the other movies or series (but not necessarily the comic books) and the animation was very well done. I was glad Raphael, my favorite turtle, was given such a major role and was very pleasantly surprised that Leonardo's character was expanded upon and finally made interesting. It was a welcome change from him simply being the bland, level-headed voice of reason and now we see him shouldering the burdens of leadership. The fight scenes alternated between large scale, video game-esque battles and one-on-one intense combat, something the live action movies never really could do. It also reminded me I have a big stack of DVDs of the '87 series on my desk that I haven't even touched. I need to get on that.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Spartans
Ah spring at last. Finally I can wear shorts again, as opposed to Sweden where I had to wait until May and even then only on hotter days.I have to say, my favorite thing about spring in Tucson, aside from the girls on campus wearing more revealing clothing, is the orange blossoms. It may not have been the most eventful spring break I've ever had, but at least I got orange blossoms.
300 with Gerard Butler and Lena Headley. I think I'm one of the few people that can snootily claim they read the book before seeing the movie. I liked both quite a bit though it might be one of the few times where the movie is better. Aside from the simple fact that fight scenes are better in motion than in panels, the characters were made better, I thought. Leonidas was made more likable than he was in the book and some depth was given to the characters. Inevitably there will be some who claim it's not historically accurate, and it may not be completely faithful, but so what? It's definitely how the Spartans would have retold the story. Though I do think it's funny that the Spartans looked down on all those that didn't stay and fight as cowards when in reality it was more of a strategic retreat rather than just running away. The 300 were trying to stall the Persians while the rest of the Greek armies regrouped and assembled. I think people tend to forget that stylization and just plain good storytelling are just as important as, if not more than, historical accuracy.
Ah spring at last. Finally I can wear shorts again, as opposed to Sweden where I had to wait until May and even then only on hotter days.I have to say, my favorite thing about spring in Tucson, aside from the girls on campus wearing more revealing clothing, is the orange blossoms. It may not have been the most eventful spring break I've ever had, but at least I got orange blossoms.
300 with Gerard Butler and Lena Headley. I think I'm one of the few people that can snootily claim they read the book before seeing the movie. I liked both quite a bit though it might be one of the few times where the movie is better. Aside from the simple fact that fight scenes are better in motion than in panels, the characters were made better, I thought. Leonidas was made more likable than he was in the book and some depth was given to the characters. Inevitably there will be some who claim it's not historically accurate, and it may not be completely faithful, but so what? It's definitely how the Spartans would have retold the story. Though I do think it's funny that the Spartans looked down on all those that didn't stay and fight as cowards when in reality it was more of a strategic retreat rather than just running away. The 300 were trying to stall the Persians while the rest of the Greek armies regrouped and assembled. I think people tend to forget that stylization and just plain good storytelling are just as important as, if not more than, historical accuracy.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
God
A conversation I had the other day dealt with what proof an atheist would need to believe in a god. Now naturally, most atheists I've met reject the Judeo-Christian God since that's the one most prevalent in our culture and we're taught that the gods in all other cultures are, of course, false. I suggested that outside of monotheism, the requirements for godliness are relatively low. After all, the Aztecs thought Cortez was a god cuz he had shiny armor and facial hair. Even actual gods like Hermes or, say, Freyr are pretty achievable deities, relatively speaking. If one takes the conservative route, then Storm from the X-Men would be a full fledged goddess. But no one now would call a bearded man in armor a god, and Storm is just a mutant. I think the atheists don't believe in gods outside their culture not because it's the 1st Commandment but because they are raised with the idea that nothing short of the Judeo-Christian God qualifies as a god at all. The atheists reject Christianity but still define a deity by their rules.
The qualification for godliness in modern society I think is the cause of atheism. God, according to Wikipedia, is supposed to have "omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence" and since people have difficulty conceiving all those omni's and consider "good" to be subjective they then deduce that no deity or deities exist. Personally, don't see how these are necessary qualifications for a god. I think transfinite knowledge and power are good enough to be a god, especially since people try to argue God doesn't exist along the lines that He can't make a rock heavy enough that He can't lift it and is therefore not all powerful. One of the necessary abilities that was mentioned in my conversation was that a deity should be able to make something out of nothing. This isn't inconceivable since matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. That ability falls within the laws of physics, unless one considers energy to be "something" and therefore not creating something out of nothing. I find that idea flawed since that suggests a deity would be infinitely (or at least very) powerful without using any energy. Another criterion was that they have to have at least the ability to create, even if they did not themselves create, the Universe or the Earth. Except fro creating the Universe, this is not so hard. All one needs to do is bump a nebula and it will eventually it will create a solar system. Then you just guide organic molecules to a planet in a habitable zone around a star. If one thinks like the scientific atheist in this regard, the Universe does this naturally so none of this should require omnipotence.
To refer to the world of sci-fi, would we consider a being which meets all the criteria for a god as a god, or just a very powerful alien? The Q from Star Trek are effectively gods but they do not claim themselves as such. The ascended Ancients and the Ori in Stargate SG1 have seemingly limitless power, but only the Ori claim themselves as gods and demand worship. If humans were to one day encounter such beings, why not call them gods? As they say, "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck..." Is it the obligation of worship that is then the defining characteristic of a god? Might that be the root of it all? Again, the standards for worship are low; from worshipping the bones of really good people to praying to the sun. My personal opinion is that worship isn't mandatory for deities any more than it is for the seasons. So basically, if you ignore our culture's requirements for being a god and remove the worship aspect, why is it difficult to imagine such beings exist?
A conversation I had the other day dealt with what proof an atheist would need to believe in a god. Now naturally, most atheists I've met reject the Judeo-Christian God since that's the one most prevalent in our culture and we're taught that the gods in all other cultures are, of course, false. I suggested that outside of monotheism, the requirements for godliness are relatively low. After all, the Aztecs thought Cortez was a god cuz he had shiny armor and facial hair. Even actual gods like Hermes or, say, Freyr are pretty achievable deities, relatively speaking. If one takes the conservative route, then Storm from the X-Men would be a full fledged goddess. But no one now would call a bearded man in armor a god, and Storm is just a mutant. I think the atheists don't believe in gods outside their culture not because it's the 1st Commandment but because they are raised with the idea that nothing short of the Judeo-Christian God qualifies as a god at all. The atheists reject Christianity but still define a deity by their rules.
The qualification for godliness in modern society I think is the cause of atheism. God, according to Wikipedia, is supposed to have "omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence" and since people have difficulty conceiving all those omni's and consider "good" to be subjective they then deduce that no deity or deities exist. Personally, don't see how these are necessary qualifications for a god. I think transfinite knowledge and power are good enough to be a god, especially since people try to argue God doesn't exist along the lines that He can't make a rock heavy enough that He can't lift it and is therefore not all powerful. One of the necessary abilities that was mentioned in my conversation was that a deity should be able to make something out of nothing. This isn't inconceivable since matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. That ability falls within the laws of physics, unless one considers energy to be "something" and therefore not creating something out of nothing. I find that idea flawed since that suggests a deity would be infinitely (or at least very) powerful without using any energy. Another criterion was that they have to have at least the ability to create, even if they did not themselves create, the Universe or the Earth. Except fro creating the Universe, this is not so hard. All one needs to do is bump a nebula and it will eventually it will create a solar system. Then you just guide organic molecules to a planet in a habitable zone around a star. If one thinks like the scientific atheist in this regard, the Universe does this naturally so none of this should require omnipotence.
To refer to the world of sci-fi, would we consider a being which meets all the criteria for a god as a god, or just a very powerful alien? The Q from Star Trek are effectively gods but they do not claim themselves as such. The ascended Ancients and the Ori in Stargate SG1 have seemingly limitless power, but only the Ori claim themselves as gods and demand worship. If humans were to one day encounter such beings, why not call them gods? As they say, "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck..." Is it the obligation of worship that is then the defining characteristic of a god? Might that be the root of it all? Again, the standards for worship are low; from worshipping the bones of really good people to praying to the sun. My personal opinion is that worship isn't mandatory for deities any more than it is for the seasons. So basically, if you ignore our culture's requirements for being a god and remove the worship aspect, why is it difficult to imagine such beings exist?
Friday, February 23, 2007
Mörk dag för Sverige
Last Wednesday was the Study Abroad fair at the U of A, so naturally I volunteered to help out at the Uppsala booth. The tone of this experience can be summed up by slapping your palm against your forehead. There were supposed to be more people volunteering but many of them couldn't make it so for awhile I was the only person running the booth (Copenhagen University didn't have anybody). I thought this might be a problem since I didn't really know what I would say to people if they asked me about Uppsala. This really wasn't a factor because the booth for Oslo was manned by the study abroad advisor from Oslo University and he brought all manner of pamphlets and brochures with him. I should also mention that the universities are responsible for sending information, and Uppsala University sent us 5 total. A pair with two copies each and one lone brochure. Also, when I got there I saw a nice healthy stack of brochures for a university in Switzerland. They're the Office of Study Abroad for Pete's sake and they STILL don't know the difference between Sweden and Switzerland.
The Norwegian guy was really good at promoting Oslo, his booth was just more appealing, I guess. Also might have helped that there were two cute Norwegian girls working the booth too. Man, one of them could not have been any more Nordic if they tried. The thing that bugged me was that I've been to Oslo, it's not a very pretty place. The Norwegian guy even agreed with me that Uppsala was probably prettier, but everyone wanted to go to Norway instead of Sweden. The other frustrating thing was that everyone was asking about the academics about Uppsala, which I only have so much knowledge of. Nobody asked if the city was FUN.
On the plus side, I did get to talk to the Norwegians and catch up with one of the Uppsala students when they showed up. And my favorite moment from that day was this one girl who was really excited and interested about Norway and the more she learned the more interested she got. Then she said, "I have a quick question: Where is Norway?"
In other Sweden related news, Hello Saferide has some new material, including some songs in Swedish. They are still weird lyrics, but at least you don't have to worry about her funky accent.
At this rate, Geordi's parents must have gotten his VISOR at an antique shop.
Last Wednesday was the Study Abroad fair at the U of A, so naturally I volunteered to help out at the Uppsala booth. The tone of this experience can be summed up by slapping your palm against your forehead. There were supposed to be more people volunteering but many of them couldn't make it so for awhile I was the only person running the booth (Copenhagen University didn't have anybody). I thought this might be a problem since I didn't really know what I would say to people if they asked me about Uppsala. This really wasn't a factor because the booth for Oslo was manned by the study abroad advisor from Oslo University and he brought all manner of pamphlets and brochures with him. I should also mention that the universities are responsible for sending information, and Uppsala University sent us 5 total. A pair with two copies each and one lone brochure. Also, when I got there I saw a nice healthy stack of brochures for a university in Switzerland. They're the Office of Study Abroad for Pete's sake and they STILL don't know the difference between Sweden and Switzerland.
The Norwegian guy was really good at promoting Oslo, his booth was just more appealing, I guess. Also might have helped that there were two cute Norwegian girls working the booth too. Man, one of them could not have been any more Nordic if they tried. The thing that bugged me was that I've been to Oslo, it's not a very pretty place. The Norwegian guy even agreed with me that Uppsala was probably prettier, but everyone wanted to go to Norway instead of Sweden. The other frustrating thing was that everyone was asking about the academics about Uppsala, which I only have so much knowledge of. Nobody asked if the city was FUN.
On the plus side, I did get to talk to the Norwegians and catch up with one of the Uppsala students when they showed up. And my favorite moment from that day was this one girl who was really excited and interested about Norway and the more she learned the more interested she got. Then she said, "I have a quick question: Where is Norway?"
In other Sweden related news, Hello Saferide has some new material, including some songs in Swedish. They are still weird lyrics, but at least you don't have to worry about her funky accent.
At this rate, Geordi's parents must have gotten his VISOR at an antique shop.
Acceptance
This is a thought that’s been floating around my head for nearly a year now. There are people who regard themselves as incredibly socially liberal and have no qualms about sex, drugs, social mores and basically live as if no one else’s opinions mattered. While there is a certain admirable freedom to that kind of outlook, I find that those individuals also tend to spout out sanctimonious rhetoric, insulting and belittling more conservative mentalities and ways of life. I’ve noticed I keep running into these people and as a way of bonding we criticize Greek life, religious fundamentalists or simpletons in general. We agree that small-minded people really should lighten up and see there is more to life than their own little world with its little rules. At this point they’re golden, but almost inevitably they will make some gradually sweeping generalization that everyone who isn’t like them are intolerant, unenlightened fools.
This is the problem; people who criticize those who they identify as closed-minded are just as closed-minded themselves. Simply because they enjoy doing a lot more things than other people might not they feel this makes them somehow more evolved. They will often accuse those who find their way of life unappealing of being intolerant of other ideas and imply, or sometimes outright state, that they are accepting of so many lifestyles and beliefs. But when it comes down to actually demonstrating this universal acceptance, they reveal that they are just as repelled and baffled by the very people they accuse of being unable to understand them. Certainly extreme social conservatism leads to a lack of understanding and intolerance of other practices, but extreme social liberalism is just as bad. It’s tempting to make the analogy of conservatism=intolerance therefore liberalism=tolerance, but if one actually applies this logic the end result is a seemingly open society where no one is outright judged for behaving differently, but are incessantly pressured into conforming. Like they said in Serenity: “We’re not telling people what to think, we’re just trying to show them how.”
I think the best way to go about achieving this acceptance of other lifestyles (aside from yoga and Buddhist philosophy) is to start out from an initially socially conservative and open up your mind from there, rather than being raised to think anything goes. That way, you can then understand the mindset of those who are less open to certain ideas having been there yourself rather than just regarding them as antiquated and stuffy.
This is a thought that’s been floating around my head for nearly a year now. There are people who regard themselves as incredibly socially liberal and have no qualms about sex, drugs, social mores and basically live as if no one else’s opinions mattered. While there is a certain admirable freedom to that kind of outlook, I find that those individuals also tend to spout out sanctimonious rhetoric, insulting and belittling more conservative mentalities and ways of life. I’ve noticed I keep running into these people and as a way of bonding we criticize Greek life, religious fundamentalists or simpletons in general. We agree that small-minded people really should lighten up and see there is more to life than their own little world with its little rules. At this point they’re golden, but almost inevitably they will make some gradually sweeping generalization that everyone who isn’t like them are intolerant, unenlightened fools.
This is the problem; people who criticize those who they identify as closed-minded are just as closed-minded themselves. Simply because they enjoy doing a lot more things than other people might not they feel this makes them somehow more evolved. They will often accuse those who find their way of life unappealing of being intolerant of other ideas and imply, or sometimes outright state, that they are accepting of so many lifestyles and beliefs. But when it comes down to actually demonstrating this universal acceptance, they reveal that they are just as repelled and baffled by the very people they accuse of being unable to understand them. Certainly extreme social conservatism leads to a lack of understanding and intolerance of other practices, but extreme social liberalism is just as bad. It’s tempting to make the analogy of conservatism=intolerance therefore liberalism=tolerance, but if one actually applies this logic the end result is a seemingly open society where no one is outright judged for behaving differently, but are incessantly pressured into conforming. Like they said in Serenity: “We’re not telling people what to think, we’re just trying to show them how.”
I think the best way to go about achieving this acceptance of other lifestyles (aside from yoga and Buddhist philosophy) is to start out from an initially socially conservative and open up your mind from there, rather than being raised to think anything goes. That way, you can then understand the mindset of those who are less open to certain ideas having been there yourself rather than just regarding them as antiquated and stuffy.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
One of the interesting things I learned from my Nature of Language class is that people on the East Coast talk at a different speed from those on the West Coast. The East Coasters will speak faster and jump in immediately when someone finishes talking, this demonstrates that they are interested in the conversation. West Coasters will speak slower in general and have longer pauses in between statements. This results in East Coasters thinking West Coasters are stupid or uninterested, while East Coasters are seen as rude because they are always interrupting. Theoretically, I should be somewhere in between. I was raised in a family from the Midwest, which should be more like the East Coast but grew up in Tucson where people would be more inclined to be like West Coasters. Certainly I've experienced the problems of both; I've been talked over by people who just jump right into a conversation but also have been frustrated by people who take for bloody ever to reply to you.
This phenomenon also seems related to a discussion I had in Uppsala with a Finn. According to some study, the amount of time a lull in a conversation can last before both parties consider it to be an awkward silence is longer for Finns that for other nationalities. I wonder how the sense of timing in languages and cultures managed to diverge over time. It can't take all that long for it to happen if there is a noticeable difference between people from opposite sides of the US.
Silly Swedes and their anti-wedding ring. Not really my color anyway.
Although they do make a tasty dessert for Fat Tuesday. How I managed to forget that's what Fettisdagen means is beyond me.
This phenomenon also seems related to a discussion I had in Uppsala with a Finn. According to some study, the amount of time a lull in a conversation can last before both parties consider it to be an awkward silence is longer for Finns that for other nationalities. I wonder how the sense of timing in languages and cultures managed to diverge over time. It can't take all that long for it to happen if there is a noticeable difference between people from opposite sides of the US.
Silly Swedes and their anti-wedding ring. Not really my color anyway.
Although they do make a tasty dessert for Fat Tuesday. How I managed to forget that's what Fettisdagen means is beyond me.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
El Laberinto del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth) with Ivana Baquero, Doug Jones and Sergi López. I liked this movie quite a bit. I was actually kind of surprised with how relatively little of the fantasy world is seen in the movie, with most of it taking place during historical events. I wonder how much of a cultural subtext there is to the parallel stories in the film, aside from some of the more obvious allegories. The depiction of Franco's Spain was pretty powerful, as well; one tends to forget how brutal the regime actually was.
I liked the designs of the creatures they had in the story. Aside from the classical creatures like fauns and fairies, there was a really spooky looking thing that seemed to be inspired by Goya, survival horror video games and Aaahh!! Real Monsters.
I also got a chance to work on my Spanish listening skills, and to become reacquainted with Castillian Spanish. I like the sound a lot more than the Spanish I'm used to, though it does take a while to get used to all those thetas. I also felt pretty good about being able to spot out some of the discrepancies between the translations and what was actually said. And learning new vulgar phrases is always good.
Sometimes I wonder if Sweden is weird on purpose.
I liked the designs of the creatures they had in the story. Aside from the classical creatures like fauns and fairies, there was a really spooky looking thing that seemed to be inspired by Goya, survival horror video games and Aaahh!! Real Monsters.
I also got a chance to work on my Spanish listening skills, and to become reacquainted with Castillian Spanish. I like the sound a lot more than the Spanish I'm used to, though it does take a while to get used to all those thetas. I also felt pretty good about being able to spot out some of the discrepancies between the translations and what was actually said. And learning new vulgar phrases is always good.
Sometimes I wonder if Sweden is weird on purpose.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
It occurred to me recently, probably due to the linguistics classes I'm taking, that there are a lot of things written in everyday life in characters that don't necessarily mean what they are supposed to mean. My example of this are stylized letters that are used by trademarks to make themselves unique, but actually are different letters entirely. For example, the O in the Monster energy drinks as a Φ. It should be Mfnster. Or the circle over the second A in Stargate, makes it more like Stargote.
In other linguistics news, I've made it through the initial nightmare of Historical Linguistics relatively unscathed. Seeing as about half of the class dropped after a few phenology lectures, I'm rather proud of myself. Those lectures were, with the exception of my Swedish placement test, the worst thing I've ever experienced academically. Everyone is using linguistic jargon like us poor anthro majors are supposed to know what it means, not even bothering to slow down to explain what the hell they are talking about. And what's worse is when the teacher illustrates her examples of sound changes. This whole process results in something to the effect of: "The polypharangealization of bilabial deaffriction indicative of Tapiman results in lenition of 'neh, nah, nyuh' to 'meh mah, myuh'." At this point, I check to see if I've lost my mind. Whenever the professor literally starts to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher, I start to worry.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sadly, it seems that while I might get to actually writing a post, it'll just sit in the "drafts" section for awhile.
It's a rare thing indeed when it snows in Tucson, as it did a week ago today. I've seen it happen a couple of times; I was in middle school (I think) last time it happened, but I don't ever recall it being quite this spectacular. We got a good inch of it, plus ice. They closed down bridges in town because Tucsonans have no experience driving on frozen surfaces.They also closed down public schools, presumably for the same reason but really it's because any day where it snows in Tucson is worth celebrating. I'm personally glad I got to see snow two years in a row, not that Tucson's snow was on par with the stuff in Sweden, but seeing it on a saguaro is pretty impressive. And what kind of amateur photographer would I be if I didn't take pictures of this rare event?
The Illusionist with Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti. This is one of those movies where I got mixed reviews from reliable sources and so had to see for myself. I kind of liked it, though I got the sense that it probably would have made a better play than a movie, aside from the magic acts. But think about how cool it would be if they did them on stage! The movie did drag on for a bit, to be honest. They really could have cut out a few scenes and made the movie a good half hour shorter without losing much. Aside from that, I thought it was enjoyable. Oh and Jessica Biel is totally hot.
It's a rare thing indeed when it snows in Tucson, as it did a week ago today. I've seen it happen a couple of times; I was in middle school (I think) last time it happened, but I don't ever recall it being quite this spectacular. We got a good inch of it, plus ice. They closed down bridges in town because Tucsonans have no experience driving on frozen surfaces.They also closed down public schools, presumably for the same reason but really it's because any day where it snows in Tucson is worth celebrating. I'm personally glad I got to see snow two years in a row, not that Tucson's snow was on par with the stuff in Sweden, but seeing it on a saguaro is pretty impressive. And what kind of amateur photographer would I be if I didn't take pictures of this rare event?
The Illusionist with Edward Norton and Paul Giamatti. This is one of those movies where I got mixed reviews from reliable sources and so had to see for myself. I kind of liked it, though I got the sense that it probably would have made a better play than a movie, aside from the magic acts. But think about how cool it would be if they did them on stage! The movie did drag on for a bit, to be honest. They really could have cut out a few scenes and made the movie a good half hour shorter without losing much. Aside from that, I thought it was enjoyable. Oh and Jessica Biel is totally hot.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Idiocracy with Luke Wilson and Maya Randolph. A short little social commentary, not really much for entertainment purposes as for reflection. I have to say I can definitely see the seeds of this in our world today. The alleged root of the dumbing down of America is that stupid people breed more than intelligent people and the stupid come to power through sheer numbers. The solution, in my mind, is simple: all the smart people need to start having a lot more sex. The only problem I had with it was the idea that the change in language would necessarily be to something stupid and unsophisticated. I’m sure Chaucer would think English has gotten dumber since his day, but that’s not really the case. That might be the linguistics classes talking now, I’m not sure.
As I thought about it for another day, while I see where they got the notion of this from, I don't really worry about the survival of the species in terms of us getting dumber. The average human is smarter than we have ever been and it's not like populations have historically been a majority of geniuses, yet we've come this far. Hell, we look fondly back at the sophistication of the Romans when they drank from lead cups and watched people actually kill each other for fun. Also, the average person today knows better than to put leeches on themselves when they get sick. The only reason why it looks like we're getting dumber is because we're living now, and the only things we read from the past are from prodigies and geniuses; people who could actually write. A century from now, no one will know about our stupid TV shows except period scholars. It may seem dumb to us, but the majority of my readers are a bit more classy than the run of the mill folk. And the upper levels of society have always thought themselves more sophisticated than the peasants. After all, (since I can't think of a more effective American example) while upper class Swedes in the 18th century were going to gasques and singing in Latin, the peasants were wiping their children's noses with their own mouths and singing "Små Grodorna". You just try and tell me our lower classes are worse than back then.
Snakes on a Plane with Samuel L. Jackson and Nathan Phillips. Not much to say, the title says it all. It definitely delivered on its promise of snakes, a plane and a combination thereof. I found some things about the movie that I couldn’t excuse with willing suspension of disbelief. First on that list is the fact that I have been on many planes in my day and never have I seen stewardesses that were that attractive. And I thought the anaconda was also a little hard to buy from the standpoint of sneaking it onto the plane. I was also rather surprised by the body count, though I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because unlike getting killed by a gun or a bomb, you need to show every person getting bitten in new and horrible ways.
As I thought about it for another day, while I see where they got the notion of this from, I don't really worry about the survival of the species in terms of us getting dumber. The average human is smarter than we have ever been and it's not like populations have historically been a majority of geniuses, yet we've come this far. Hell, we look fondly back at the sophistication of the Romans when they drank from lead cups and watched people actually kill each other for fun. Also, the average person today knows better than to put leeches on themselves when they get sick. The only reason why it looks like we're getting dumber is because we're living now, and the only things we read from the past are from prodigies and geniuses; people who could actually write. A century from now, no one will know about our stupid TV shows except period scholars. It may seem dumb to us, but the majority of my readers are a bit more classy than the run of the mill folk. And the upper levels of society have always thought themselves more sophisticated than the peasants. After all, (since I can't think of a more effective American example) while upper class Swedes in the 18th century were going to gasques and singing in Latin, the peasants were wiping their children's noses with their own mouths and singing "Små Grodorna". You just try and tell me our lower classes are worse than back then.
Snakes on a Plane with Samuel L. Jackson and Nathan Phillips. Not much to say, the title says it all. It definitely delivered on its promise of snakes, a plane and a combination thereof. I found some things about the movie that I couldn’t excuse with willing suspension of disbelief. First on that list is the fact that I have been on many planes in my day and never have I seen stewardesses that were that attractive. And I thought the anaconda was also a little hard to buy from the standpoint of sneaking it onto the plane. I was also rather surprised by the body count, though I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because unlike getting killed by a gun or a bomb, you need to show every person getting bitten in new and horrible ways.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
I got a fortune cookie from Panda Express in Asheville which read, "Better is the enemy of good." My normal reaction to any fortune cookie is to make fun of them, particularly if they aren't really fortunes at all. But this one seemed more difficult to do, the best I could come up with was to fold the paper so it read, "Beer is the enemy of god." Afterwards, like I traditionally do with other fortunes, I saved in my wallet to ponder it. I'm actually surprised that it's insightful words of wisdom instead of some trite little phrase. If you really think about it, the message is spot on, the idea of "better" does make "good" less valuable. It actually reminds me of the Swedish word "lagom", one of the explanations of the term was essentially "good enough is perfect." The idea that any more is unnecessary and potentially detrimental. I don't think that's quite the angle this fortune is going for though, I think it's suggesting to take things as they are and not place comparative values on them. What you think is good suits you fine until you find someone has something better, then you don't value the good thing you have.
As I thought about it, you can't even make fun of the fortune by adding "in bed" to the end of it. Hell, that's a whole new valuable lesson right there. Originally thinking facetiously, I remembered that traditionally evil is the enemy of good. And since good is part of a duality, there can be only one opposite. Therefore, evil=better. But better cannot exist in a vacuum, evil is then better than good, while the very notion of "better than" is criticized in the fortune. Hence, the idea that evil=better is validated by simply stating it. One could also interpret it literally, that evil is better than good. Certainly in some regards it has its advantages and it is occasionally embraced, as evidenced by society's fascination with anti-heroes and "bad" or "dangerous" characters. Evil is seen as more fun, but because it seeks out fun selfishly, it will always want the best, never satisfied with what might otherwise be enjoyable. The quest for better will then inevitably lead evil to be perpetually unsatisfied, making better the enemy of evil as well as good.
All that from a dessert.
Imagine if an alien probe did the same thing if it looked for life on Earth.
We should all mourn the passing of one of the world's greatest inventors.
As I thought about it, you can't even make fun of the fortune by adding "in bed" to the end of it. Hell, that's a whole new valuable lesson right there. Originally thinking facetiously, I remembered that traditionally evil is the enemy of good. And since good is part of a duality, there can be only one opposite. Therefore, evil=better. But better cannot exist in a vacuum, evil is then better than good, while the very notion of "better than" is criticized in the fortune. Hence, the idea that evil=better is validated by simply stating it. One could also interpret it literally, that evil is better than good. Certainly in some regards it has its advantages and it is occasionally embraced, as evidenced by society's fascination with anti-heroes and "bad" or "dangerous" characters. Evil is seen as more fun, but because it seeks out fun selfishly, it will always want the best, never satisfied with what might otherwise be enjoyable. The quest for better will then inevitably lead evil to be perpetually unsatisfied, making better the enemy of evil as well as good.
All that from a dessert.
Imagine if an alien probe did the same thing if it looked for life on Earth.
We should all mourn the passing of one of the world's greatest inventors.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Movies:
Borat with Sacha Baron Cohen. I laughed a couple of times in this movie but came out of it really unhappy with it. Its critique on American subcultures is laudable, but even that doesn’t save this film. It’s terribly and uncomfortably racist, Baron Cohen himself is Jewish but that doesn’t magically not make it racist (one might draw a parallel to Bamboozled). Not to mention the insulting depiction of Kazakhstan. If they had executed this with a shred of decency the deception of the documentary might be excused as investigative journalism, shedding light on bigotry and racism, as his defenders claim. Instead, it’s just vulgar and mean.
Lady in the Water with Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard. Self-indulgent tripe is a phrase that comes to mind when talking about this movie. Shyamalan doesn’t appear to have ever been quite all right in the head, but his latest movies are just getting weirder and weirder. First off, a movie inspired by a bedtime story you tell your kids isn’t a good movie plot, no matter what you think. Second, casting yourself as a visionary in your own story is really tacky. And third, if you’re going to use themes, archetypes and symbolism in your films (and who doesn’t?) don’t be so damn blatant about it. You’d think he forgot the movie isn’t just going to be watched by his kids.
The Producers with Nathan lane, Matthew Broderick and Uma Thurman. I liked this, actually. I had heard nothing but good things about it, but you know how that can sometimes go with movies. It’s lighthearted, in that wonderful Mel Brooks kind of way. I’m still not enough of a fan to be singing along to it, but maybe that takes a second viewing. One thing I had wondered though: is Ulla, with her attitudes towards sex, perhaps a play on the Swedish word “knulla” (to fuck)? Is that giving the writers too much credit? But then again, there are a lot of other stereotypical Swedish names to choose from.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest with Johnny Depp and Keira Knightley. Instead of reviewing this in my own words, I think this guy has pretty much nailed it.
Old School with Luke Wilson, Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn. For a movie I’ve heard so much about, I was kind of let down. It’s entertaining but not exceptional in its genre. Maybe the expectations were too high, I dunno. I’d bet there would be quite a few people who would love the idea of an age-free fraternity that’s not necessarily affiliated with students. If you strip away the humor of it, I thought the characters were kind of sad. They’re completely immature and selfish and too preoccupied with reliving their past. In that vein, given the recurring themes in Vince Vaughn’s movies, I wonder if he isn’t type cast.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind with Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet. This is one of those rare movies whose reputation is justified in my eyes. Though weird, it’s definitely good to see the analysis of how experience and memories, even (especially?) unpleasant ones shape our lives. I’m also in favor of the ambiguity of the ending, anything less would have only hurt the story. I’m more curious about the notion that people are prone to repeating their mistakes over and over again if they lose their memories of those mistakes. I think that in the case of the staff members that would be more likely, but the chance meeting of Joel and Clementine seems a much more difficult thing to repeat. Plus, since the erasure also affects memory triggers as well as the memories themselves, I wonder if one erased memories of someone they met in high school if they would also forget most of their high school experiences. Would they forget everything they learned as well, or would they inexplicably know Spanish or something? Come to think of it, the movie kind of reminds me of Knights of the Old Republic, for those who have played it.
Borat with Sacha Baron Cohen. I laughed a couple of times in this movie but came out of it really unhappy with it. Its critique on American subcultures is laudable, but even that doesn’t save this film. It’s terribly and uncomfortably racist, Baron Cohen himself is Jewish but that doesn’t magically not make it racist (one might draw a parallel to Bamboozled). Not to mention the insulting depiction of Kazakhstan. If they had executed this with a shred of decency the deception of the documentary might be excused as investigative journalism, shedding light on bigotry and racism, as his defenders claim. Instead, it’s just vulgar and mean.
Lady in the Water with Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard. Self-indulgent tripe is a phrase that comes to mind when talking about this movie. Shyamalan doesn’t appear to have ever been quite all right in the head, but his latest movies are just getting weirder and weirder. First off, a movie inspired by a bedtime story you tell your kids isn’t a good movie plot, no matter what you think. Second, casting yourself as a visionary in your own story is really tacky. And third, if you’re going to use themes, archetypes and symbolism in your films (and who doesn’t?) don’t be so damn blatant about it. You’d think he forgot the movie isn’t just going to be watched by his kids.
The Producers with Nathan lane, Matthew Broderick and Uma Thurman. I liked this, actually. I had heard nothing but good things about it, but you know how that can sometimes go with movies. It’s lighthearted, in that wonderful Mel Brooks kind of way. I’m still not enough of a fan to be singing along to it, but maybe that takes a second viewing. One thing I had wondered though: is Ulla, with her attitudes towards sex, perhaps a play on the Swedish word “knulla” (to fuck)? Is that giving the writers too much credit? But then again, there are a lot of other stereotypical Swedish names to choose from.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest with Johnny Depp and Keira Knightley. Instead of reviewing this in my own words, I think this guy has pretty much nailed it.
Old School with Luke Wilson, Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn. For a movie I’ve heard so much about, I was kind of let down. It’s entertaining but not exceptional in its genre. Maybe the expectations were too high, I dunno. I’d bet there would be quite a few people who would love the idea of an age-free fraternity that’s not necessarily affiliated with students. If you strip away the humor of it, I thought the characters were kind of sad. They’re completely immature and selfish and too preoccupied with reliving their past. In that vein, given the recurring themes in Vince Vaughn’s movies, I wonder if he isn’t type cast.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind with Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet. This is one of those rare movies whose reputation is justified in my eyes. Though weird, it’s definitely good to see the analysis of how experience and memories, even (especially?) unpleasant ones shape our lives. I’m also in favor of the ambiguity of the ending, anything less would have only hurt the story. I’m more curious about the notion that people are prone to repeating their mistakes over and over again if they lose their memories of those mistakes. I think that in the case of the staff members that would be more likely, but the chance meeting of Joel and Clementine seems a much more difficult thing to repeat. Plus, since the erasure also affects memory triggers as well as the memories themselves, I wonder if one erased memories of someone they met in high school if they would also forget most of their high school experiences. Would they forget everything they learned as well, or would they inexplicably know Spanish or something? Come to think of it, the movie kind of reminds me of Knights of the Old Republic, for those who have played it.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
North Carolina is a great place with wonderful scenery (even though everything is dead in the winter, as I was often reminded). It’s funny, I had frequently told people in Uppsala that the US is huge and it’s no more fair to judge the US by one region than it is to judge Europe by one country, but I had never actually experienced the diversity in the US for myself. I now see there is more truth in my words than I had ever thought. Europeans had real difficulty understanding that although Arizona is technically in the southern part of the US, it is not in the South. The difference between the South (and North Carolina isn’t even the Deep South) and the Southwest is staggering. There are more churches than I have ever seen in one area in NC. It’s unreal. Also, the food is distinctively different, although thankfully there are enough national chains that you don’t have to go to the South to sample it. I tried grits for the first time and was really not impressed. I also tried Southern sweet tea (thanks to Keith) and was very much impressed. I learned they really like fried chicken there and one can go to nearly any restaurant and order some. Chick-fil-a has twice as many options on their menu in the South than they do at the U of A food court. I learned that even though I'm still in the same country and the cultural differences aren't international, I can still be struck by completely unexpected things. My most memorable instance of culture shock was when I ordered barbeque pork and got a plate of shredded meat resembling nothing of what the rest of the civilized world calls barbeque.
Asheville is everything I was promised it would be. Imagine if 4th Avenue became its own city and you pretty much have Asheville. As if to drive that point home, I saw a New Age store called "Street Fair". The Great Smoky Mountains are really a sight to behold. We had complained that it was overcast the entire time we were there, but if it hadn’t been, the mountains wouldn’t have looked nearly as beautiful.
Driving around in NC is quite interesting as well. It’s a big trucking state, so there’s always an inordinate amount of trucks on the road, often making for terrifying moments when it doesn’t look like their load of lumber is properly tied down. The speed limits are frequently strange numbers, like 19MPH. Also, there must be some strange force afflicting vehicles in NC because you will always see cars on the side of the road, not visibly damaged, but abandoned nonetheless. We saw between 20 and 30 cars on the side of the road between Smithfield and Asheville and saw about as many cars with their emergency blinkers on or some that stalled at a stoplight.
Tangentially, I’ve gained a renewed appreciation of Kim’s dogs Mattie and Tia (not that I didn’t appreciate them originally). After seeing how completely unexpressive and lifeless certain hound dogs can be, I’m glad some dogs are more animated and lively than that.
And finally, I have to say I’m surprised with how I can know someone since kindergarten and not know anything about them, be best friends with someone in high school and never see them now, but meet someone for 11 days that changes your life and becomes one of your closest friends even though you haven’t seen them in 3 years. How does that work?
Plus, many new pics and a new, surprisingly accurate, map function.
Asheville is everything I was promised it would be. Imagine if 4th Avenue became its own city and you pretty much have Asheville. As if to drive that point home, I saw a New Age store called "Street Fair". The Great Smoky Mountains are really a sight to behold. We had complained that it was overcast the entire time we were there, but if it hadn’t been, the mountains wouldn’t have looked nearly as beautiful.
Driving around in NC is quite interesting as well. It’s a big trucking state, so there’s always an inordinate amount of trucks on the road, often making for terrifying moments when it doesn’t look like their load of lumber is properly tied down. The speed limits are frequently strange numbers, like 19MPH. Also, there must be some strange force afflicting vehicles in NC because you will always see cars on the side of the road, not visibly damaged, but abandoned nonetheless. We saw between 20 and 30 cars on the side of the road between Smithfield and Asheville and saw about as many cars with their emergency blinkers on or some that stalled at a stoplight.
Tangentially, I’ve gained a renewed appreciation of Kim’s dogs Mattie and Tia (not that I didn’t appreciate them originally). After seeing how completely unexpressive and lifeless certain hound dogs can be, I’m glad some dogs are more animated and lively than that.
And finally, I have to say I’m surprised with how I can know someone since kindergarten and not know anything about them, be best friends with someone in high school and never see them now, but meet someone for 11 days that changes your life and becomes one of your closest friends even though you haven’t seen them in 3 years. How does that work?
Plus, many new pics and a new, surprisingly accurate, map function.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)